I began this book by invoking Huey’s (1908) ethic and I will end with this spirit.
Huey expected all of us to participate as a community in improving reading instruction. He fundamentally believed that research was the path to bring about improvement. Reading Development in a Second Language set forth research directions in the area of research design and in curriculum and instruction.
The first task of this chapter is to discuss whether the challenges for research and teaching set forth in Reading Development in a Second Language were ever met. But Huey was not one to look backward. Hence, to remain with his ethic, Understanding Advanced Second-Language Reading ends with an outline of a research program that follows many of the research directions cited in the vol-ume and that principally emphasizes the work to be done within a compensatory framework.
Toward Criteria for Quality Research
Reading Development in a Second Language set forth recommendations for the conduct of second-language reading research. A feature of excellent research in second-language reading that has been implemented in the data base is the consistent use of authentic text. The days of observing readers under condi-tions that do not represent what they will do outside of instruction seem to be over. Yet other issues mentioned, principally seated in a lack of responsive-ness to previous theory and research, remain of concern. In other words, many studies even today seem to be conducted within a vacuum rather than being in dialog with past and potential work. This contention held true with a number of the studies listed in Chapter 3 that re-explored what seemed to be the same issue over and over without revealing new perspectives. Reading Development in a Second Language also lamented the use of single measures of comprehen-sion, noting that “there is no perfect measure of reading comprehension. Every measure is flawed; each measure provides one perspective. Therefore, multi-ple measures are necessary to provide a more than unidimensional picture”
(Bernhardt, 1991, p. 224). And yet multiple measures were rarely employed within individual studies over the past years. Beyond a lack of multiple
measures is the lack of multiple texts. A reading study employing one text from the universe of texts runs the risk of disadvantaging subjects due to a particular topic or style. Subjects must be given multiple opportunities to display their proficiency in reading. A third key issue noted in Reading Development in a Second Language was a failure of studies to position their subjects toward the text(s) they were asked to read. That volume noted that we needed to analyze reader performances under different “cognitive and affective stances, and while accomplishing different reading goals … Each of these conditions and circum-stances implies a potentially different set of processing strategies and concomi-tant different set of performance data” (p. 225). No study outlined in Chapter 3 observed the same readers under different conditions or with different dis-positions. This state remains of major concern because it is clear that literacy is linked to different kinds of social conditions.
As I noted in Chapter 3, I tried to re-articulate these concerns in a contri-bution to a special issue of Reading in a Foreign Language (Bernhardt, 2004).
Yet, progress regarding appropriate research design has been slow. There are several reasons for this. Often, young researchers interested in the topic of sec-ond-language reading are either schooled in secsec-ond-language acquisition or in reading, but rarely in both. This leads to studies that might meet certain cri-teria but not appropriate ones for the particular area. Second-language acqui-sition researchers might focus on language variables and ignore the reasoning behind using multiple texts in a study. Reading researchers might focus on the texts and ignore the level of the reader’s first-language proficiency or the nature of the first languages involved. A second reason for second-language reading researchers having failed to establish a common research tradition is that, as I mentioned earlier, both related fields, second-language acquisition and reading, have been slow to acknowledge the importance of the field itself. These fields have not demanded rigor because they generally ignore any findings from the data base. Again, while this might appear to be tautological it is, perhaps, more the nature of a vicious cycle of dismissal. In fact, in my early career it was next to impossible to get a study of second-language reading published in a number of journals; hence, the only research outlet available was often edited books and conference proceedings. This situation meant that a substantial number of stud-ies that were quite good tended to be ignored because they were buried in what might be called non-elite, non-refereed volumes A third reason is related and that is the demands of publishing. In the Handbook of Reading Research, Volume II, Mosenthal and Kamil (1991) remarked on this phenomenon:
University constraints often play an important role in determining what approach to progress reading researchers adopt … . In order to produce the necessary volume of research, assistant professors can be tempted by the expediency of choosing validating research over interpretive research.
Because it provides for a ready-made set of variables and operational conditions, validating research often yields highly predictable (and
publishable) results at much less the effort than might be the case for interpretative research. (pp. 1039–1040)
Mosenthal and Kamil go on to contend that while these kinds of publications might help the individual researcher progress, they often do not contribute to progress in the field of reading. Their view might explain why there are many studies in certain areas—studies that often seem to be indistinguishable one from the other. While careful work across multiple languages and populations is important, that work should be progressive in nature rather than constantly a replication of what has come before; it should bring in new views and new perspectives rather than repeating established ones. In Reading Development in a Second Language, I commented that naivety in research designs is forgivable, but carelessness is not. Under the rubric of naivety, I listed not using newer research methodologies or technologies for data collection. The more serious issue is the careless one or a “lack of responsiveness to new data” (Bernhardt, 1991, p. 224). I often review for journals and repeatedly see studies that fail to allow subjects to use their stronger language in assessment; or that fail to delineate the language backgrounds of subjects; or that continue to use cloze as an assessment technique even though it has been discredited. The area of second-language reading is too important to accept reading studies that are not fully informed by the data base. In addition, I often see bibliographies filled with decades-old studies or I see studies that do not grapple with any theory whatsoever. It is as if the studies are conducted in a vacuum and that vacuum excludes the context where a particular study contributes to the whole of progress in the field.
We clearly need as a profession to establish research criteria that meet the needs of the unique situation of second-language reading. These quality criteria must meet the demands of both reading research and second-language acquisi-tion research. Some criteria are listed in Table 7.1. The criteria try to capture our need to garner information across different text types as well as across language and literacy backgrounds. They also try to reinforce the notion that all research studies must be respectful of the intricacies of an array of languages and, there-fore, should always include native informants as part of a research team.
Table 7.1 Research Criteria for Studies of Second-Language Reading Specification of first-language literacy level
Measurement of second-language grammatical level
Delineation of first-language backgrounds of subject population
Explanation of the linguistic relationship of the cognizant first and second languages At least one member of the research team able to use the cognizant first and second
languages
Subjects’ comprehension assessed in their dominant language Multiple texts employed
Multiple measures employed
Finally, there is the critical issue of how we pose questions. Brantmeier (2004b) noted that:
analysis of variance (ANOVA) is the most widely used statistical proce-dure in quantitatively-oriented second-language reading research. This is because, as depicted by the research questions, L2 reading researchers often investigate the relationship of many different independent variables with dependent variables and are concerned about the variation between and within groups of variables … ANOVA has been employed in analyzing data for inferential purposes. (p. 57)
She adds an example: “prior research that examines a comprehension assess-ment test for L2 reading may have shown that success on the test is related to factors such as topic familiarity levels, gender, type of assessment task, etc.”
Understanding Advanced Second-Language Reading argues, however, for a dif-ferent way of conceptualizing the second-language process—not as a compila-tion of factors independent of one another, but rather as a set of factors that influence each other. Brantmeier takes on the point: “Perhaps more inquiries about L2 reading comprehension should be concerned with the amounts and types of variables that are superior, or more influential, in producing higher levels of reading comprehension.” She notes that a multiple regression perspec-tive, while not different from analysis of variance mathematically speaking, can offer a perspective that enables us to see how much of the reading process we are able to explain within investigations and how much is outside the investigation;
i.e., “residual.” The compensatory model is about how much influence we can account for and how much is still unexplained.
New Questions on Old Topics
All academic books raise more questions than they answer; Understanding Advanced Second-Language Reading is no exception to this rule. This chapter returns to the narrative in Chapter 3 for conceptual organization. For while this volume advocates compensatory processing and a view of reading that tries to understand variables in relation to each other rather than independent of each other, it acknowledges that the majority of the data base remains focused on individuals’ variables. These remain important variables that we must come to understand in greater detail.
Questions Related to Background Knowledge
There is no question that the knowledge a reader possesses has an influence in the reading process. How this knowledge operates and whether it determines or obfuscates comprehension are the issues. Research questions suggested might be: When does a reader revert to relying on background knowledge? What role does background knowledge play in upper-register text processing? Is this role perhaps more or less significant than in lower-level text processing; i.e., is the compensatory
share larger or smaller? How do the readers of an upper-register text know when to distance themselves from background knowledge in order to assess knowledge implied by the author? I have been extremely careful throughout this volume not to invoke military dimensions of second-language reading or of its importance within the intelligence community and yet, the variable of background knowl-edge is absolutely crucial in this arena. Does believing in a bit of knowlknowl-edge remain so powerful that one cannot read beyond it? How does one learn to use background knowledge but to remain suspicious of it?
Another category of questions relates to what background knowledge actually is. I struggled with this issue while trying to categorize studies. Indeed, knowing how to use an analogy is a bit of background knowledge; but that knowledge could perhaps be more conveniently categorized as literacy knowledge. Topic interest also entails background knowledge; if a reader has no interest in a topic one might assume little background knowledge. An alternative way of posing such a question would be: Is topic interest, in fact, an affective factor and more related to motivation that to actual concrete topic?
Questions Related to Technology
The studies outlined in Chapter 3 that examined uses of technology are impor-tant. They have begun the complex process of trying to understand the interac-tion of a second-language reader with technology-based tools. Throughout this volume I have referenced texts found on the internet and have used the argu-ment of technology on which to base my view that it is technology itself that has caused the explosion of second-language readers. While I have asserted this we still do not know how many readers across the globe regularly access information in a language other than their mother tongue? One could investigate this question by probing the number of hits on particular websites.
The studies listed provide overwhelming evidence that readers believe in the power of technology. They accept and expect technology-based tools. Yet the exact nature of these tools and their configuration remains unclear. Studies seem to point toward particular kinds of configurations, for example, electronic dic-tionaries. Are word-based rather than picture-based configurations truly superior?
Or is the efficacy of electronic configurations dependent upon variables such as regis-ter, topic, and/or reader proficiency level? Re-asking many of the questions already posed, but within better-designed studies that include measures of literacy and multiple passages and tasks would provide the confidence we need for future materials development. Additional questions regarding word look-ups, the den-sity of textual look-ups and so forth could all be probed within the context of technology-intense second-language reading studies.
Technology exhibits dilemmas corollary to those facing definitions of back-ground knowledge. Substantial overlap will occur between variable focus. For example, when a reader navigates through hyper-text, are the navigation strategies unique to the second-language context or are they strategies simply deposited from first-language strategies? In order to answer this important question, one would
need to track second-language readers reading hypertext not only in their sec-ond language but also in their first.
Questions Related to Strategies
Separating specific second-language reading strategies from general first-language literacy strategies is absolutely key in making progress in the arena of strategies. Merely finding strategies at use in reading is tantamount to discover-ing that a text is involved; such a finddiscover-ing reveals little about strategy use. Some of the studies highlighted in Chapter 3 indicated findings that would not, indeed could not, be found in first-language reading, such as translation. Is translation the key second-language reading strategy? Do readers of upper-register texts con-tinue to use translation as a strategy or do they suspend it in upper reaches, having enough cognitive capacity and confidence not to resort to it or to find it superfluous?
Should we perceive the use of prior knowledge as a “strategy”? Are there second-language versions of prediction or interpretation strategies? Should we understand compensation in terms of strategies?
Expert–novice think-aloud studies could provide some insight into this criti-cal topic.
Questions Related to Testing
Large-scale test development in languages other than English such as Spanish and Arabic as a foreign language would be helpful in gauging the progress of readers from lower levels into much higher registers. Moreover, approaching the question of rating versus scoring in a more substantive way beyond the data offered in Chapter 6 would also be important in establishing the efficacy and efficiency of that particular technique. Questions of the relationship of second-language reading and writing might also be fruitfully pursued within the rating framework.
Questions Related to Intrapersonal Variables
Affective and personality variables remain as variables that tend to fascinate yet rarely contribute to a resolution. Well-designed studies that enable research to factor out features such as language and literacy knowledge and, most probably, also topic, would then allow researchers to perceive affective/internal variables such as interest, motivation, and gender.
Questions Related to Transfer
The area of transfer illustrates the difficulty of proposing a question related to one apparent variable when the question might be primarily about a differ-ent area such as strategies. Can L1/L2 transfer and strategy use be separated? In Chapter 3, I already highlighted some key questions regarding transfer, arguing that the question should not be whether there is transfer but, rather, how this
transfer takes place. Is the L1/L2 link always used as a strategy? Is transfer percep-tible through the reaches of upper-register reading? Again, well-designed think-alouds would be helpful in pursuing these questions.
Questions Related to Phonological Processing and Word Recognition
I have mentioned repeatedly throughout this volume that we understand very little about the precise nature of phonology in second-language reading. Indeed, it is eminently clear that phonology plays a role but how close is that phonology to the L2 phonology? Does phonological processing continue to play a role in upper-register text comprehension? Does phonology become more native-like as a second-language reader progresses into the upper reaches of text understanding?
Questions Related to Instruction
Large-scale instructional programs such as extensive reading need to be con-ducted under experimental conditions in order to glean which features of the program bring about the reported vocabulary and comprehension increases.
Merely continuing to describe extensive reading programs, for example, with-out comparing them with other programs offers little. The claim that extensive reading leads to vocabulary gains requires a measurement of vocabulary level before implementing extensive reading and a comparison with other ways of acquiring vocabulary before we can claim the efficacy of extensive reading with confidence. Further, the recall protocol procedure has never been examined experimentally. I have asserted its efficacy and can testify to its usefulness, but it needs to be examined within the context of other instructional approaches as well as within the context of teacher development. Does the recall protocol procedure help teachers to “see” what is going on in second-language comprehen-sion? How do teachers learn to glean how their students are conceptualizing sec-ond-language texts? Does this ability to perceive student comprehension processes actually assist learners in their comprehension? The précis idea offered by Swaffar and Arens for approaching the learning of upper-register texts should also be investigated. Does a specific focus on text structures, as is highlighted by a précis technique, enable readers to independently create a précis and, more importantly, does being able to do so enhance their comprehension abilities? The studies listed in Chapter 3 also indicated that certain teaching strategies such as instruction in word retention were helpful and should be examined within the context of true experiments. Grabe (2009) and Hudson (2007) each list effective first-language instructional strategies that should be investigated in L2 contexts.
Questions Related to Vocabulary
No area within second-language reading is more critical than an understand-ing of vocabulary learnunderstand-ing within the context of readunderstand-ing. As I have noted earlier,
studies conducted in isolation of how words are retained are necessary but not
studies conducted in isolation of how words are retained are necessary but not